Utilization of Community Correction Centers - FY 2013 James, Administrative Assistant Court Services...

Utilization of Community Corrections Centers

Statistical Report, FY 2013

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Trial Court

Office of Community Corrections

January 2014

Office of Community Corrections220 Forbes Road, Suite 301

Braintree, MA 02184

Voice: 781-848-2649Fax: 781-848-3503

i

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

Administrative OfficePat Horne, Deputy Director of Operations

Kimberly Norton, Fiscal ManagerKaren Noonan, Office Manager

Melissa Repici, Fiscal Operations SupervisorAddie Walker, Program Specialist

Genevieve O’Brien, Administrative AssistantCarol Campbell, Administrative Assistant

Field ManagersWilliam Friedman, Regional Program Manager

Tim Gagnon, Regional Program Manager Kevin Kearney, Regional Program Manager

Vincent L. Lorenti, Regional Program ManagerJohn Quinn, Regional Program Manager

Yardley Theolien, Regional Program ManagerSandra Brown, Clinical Program ManagerDaniela Lopes, Clinical Program Manager

Christine Costa, Program ManagerTerrance Ryan, Program ManagerScott Gomes, Program Manager

ii

Community Service ProgramDavid Skocik, Statewide Supervisor

Christopher Cannata, Assistant Statewide Supervisor Lisa Hickey, Assistant Statewide Supervisor

Michael LeCours, Assistant Statewide SupervisorTim Callahan, Assistant Statewide Supervisor

Angela Griffin, Administrative AssistantChandra Shultz, Administrative AssistantChristine Pagan, Administrative AssistantPhyllis James, Administrative Assistant

Court Services Coordinators Assistant Court Services Coordinators

iii

Acknowledgments

This report would not have been possible without the cooperation ofadministrators in all of the community corrections centers and collaboratingagencies and the guidance and support of the Massachusetts SentencingCommission. The Office of Community Corrections would like to acknowledgethat cooperation and assistance as follows:

Barnstable CountySheriff James M. CummingsChristine Costa, Program Manager, Hyannis

Berkshire CountySheriff Thomas BowlerKyle Schadler, Program Manager, Pittsfield

Bristol CountySheriff Thomas M. HodgsonScott Gomes, Program Manager, TauntonThomas Carter, Program Manager, Dartmouth

Dukes CountySheriff Michael A. McCormackJeremy Norton, Program Manager, West Tisbury

Essex CountySheriff Frank G. Cousins, Jr.Christine Eisenhauer, Program Manager, LawrenceSteve Cicco, Program Manager, LynnRobert Levarone, Program Manager, Salisbury

Hampden CountySheriff Michael J. Ashe, Jr.Chris Bernier, Program Manager, Springfield/Holyoke

Hampshire CountySheriff Robert J. GarveyTim Simons, Program Manager, Northampton

Middlesex CountySheriff Peter J. KoutoujianDeputy Al Pare, Program Manager, Lowell

Norfolk CountySheriff Michael BellottiRichard McDonough, Program Manager, Quincy

Plymouth CountySheriff Joseph D. McDonald, Jr.Terry Ryan, Program Manager, Plymouth CCCTara Canavan, Program Manager, Brockton CCC

Suffolk CountySheriff Steven W. TompkinsGraham Allen, Program Manager, Boston CCC

Worcester CountySheriff Lew EvangelidisTom Ash, Program Manager, Webster CCCMark Leary, Program Manager, Fitchburg CCCFran Pisegna, Program Manager, Worcester CCC Karen Benson, Program Manger, Worcester JRC

Department of CorrectionLuis S. Spencer, Commissioner

Department of Youth ServicesPeter J. Forbes, Commissioner

Massachusetts Parole BoardJoshua Wall , Chair

Office of the Commissioner of ProbationEdward J. Dolan, Commissioner

Massachusetts Sentencing CommissionFrancis J. Carney Jr., Ph.D, Executive DirectorLinda K. Holt, Research DirectorLee M. Kavanagh, Research Analyst

v

Executive SummaryThis report was prepared to present summary data on the utilization ofcommunity corrections centers in Massachusetts:

• This report provides statistical data on the 20 community correctionscenters in operation during FY 2013;

• On average, 758 offenders were participating in the programs daily at thecommunity corrections centers state-wide;

• All community corrections center program participants were under thesupervision of a criminal justice agency:

• 81.4% were supervised by Probation• 13.1% were supervised by a Sheriff department and• 5.5% were supervised by the Parole Board

• The community corrections centers facilitated intensive criminal justicesupervision of participants at intermediate sanction Level III or Level IV:

• 91.9% were Intermediate Sanction Level III; and,• 8.1% were Intermediate Sanction Level IV.

• Community corrections center program participants were both male andfemale:

• 21% were female; and,• 79% were male.

• There were 2,985 community corrections referrals :

• 90% were Intermediate Sanction Level III; and,• 10% were intermediate Sanction Level IV.

• There were 801 intermediate sanction level III and IV participanttransitions:

• 9.1% made a transition from Level IV to Level III;• 90.9% made a transition from Level III to Level II (standard

supervision).

vi

There were 2,024 intermediate sanction level III and IV participant terminationsfrom community corrections:

• 9.1% of participants were terminated from Level IV;• 90.1% of participants were terminated from Level III.

• There were 18,310 referrals to the community service program. Amongthose referrals:

• 75.2% were male;• 24.8% were female.And:• 97.6% were adults;• 2.4% were juveniles.

• There were 91 participants awarded their GED in FY 2013.

• There were 876 participants placed in jobs in FY 2013

• 24% of those participants received placement into part time jobs;• 76% of those participants received placement into full time jobs.

• There were 691 participants placed in aftercare in FY 2013.

• There were 65,066 specimens screened for illicit drugs in FY 2013:

• 86.2% reported negative results;• 13.8% reported positive results.

vii

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Study Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Study Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9TOTAL POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9POPULATION BY GENDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16NEW PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18TRANSITIONS AND TERMINATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20GED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28JOB PLACEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30AFTERCARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32DRUG TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34COMMUNITY SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CENTERS IN STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Number of Community Corrections Centers, 1998 to 2013 . . . . . . . . . 4Figure 2. Sentencing Guidelines Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 3. Total Population by Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 4. Average Population by Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 5. Population by Supervising Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 6. Average Population by Supervising Agency and Center . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 7. Average Population by Intermediate Sanction Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 8. Average Population by Intermediate Sanctions Level and Center . . 15Figure 9. Average Population by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Figure 10. Average Population by Gender and Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Figure 11. Referrals by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Figure 12. Referrals by Level and Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 13. Transitions and Terminations from Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 14. Transitions by Month and Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 15. Transitions by Center and Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 16. Terminations by Month and Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 17. Terminations by Center and Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 18. Termination Reasons for Level III, IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 19. Outcomes without CJ intervention and with CJ intervention. . . . . . . 27Figure 20. GED Performance by Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Figure 21. Job Placement Performance by Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Figure 22. Aftercare Placement by Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 23. Total Number of Drug Screens by Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 24. Percentage of Positive and Negative Drug Test Results by Center 36Figure 25. Adult Community Service Referrals by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Figure 26. Juvenile Community Service Referrals by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

1

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

UTILIZATION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CENTERS

STATISTICAL REPORT, FY 2013

INTRODUCTION

The Office of Community Corrections (OCC) is authorized by MassachusettsGeneral Law Chapter 211F. The mission of OCC is the establishment ofintermediate sanctions programs which offer a continuum of sanctions andservices for probation, sheriffs, parole, the Department of Youth Services (DYS),and the Department of Correction (DOC). These intermediate sanctions aredelivered at community corrections centers across the state.

Community corrections centers are community based, intensive supervisionsites, which deliver bundled sanctions and services, including treatment andeducation, to high risk offenders via Intermediate Sanction Levels.

Among the sanctions delivered at community corrections centers are:

• community service • day reporting• drug & alcohol testing• electronic monitoring

Among the services provided at community corrections centers are:

• communicable disease prevention education• GED/ABE/ESL or comparable educational component• job readiness training and placement• life skills and education• referral to Department of Public Health or Department of Mental

Health services• substance abuse treatment• gender specific treatment services


2

Community corrections centers are designed to provide a targeted criminaljustice response to a specific group of offenders. That response is delivered atthe Community Corrections Centers by assignment to an Intermediate SanctionLevel. Intermediate Sanction Levels III and IV are intended for those offenderswho possess a substantial criminal history and are chronic substance abusers. In addition, this group may be underemployed or unemployed. Finally,Intermediate Sanction Levels III and IV are reserved for those offenders whohold a strong potential for eventual incarceration or who have served a term ofincarceration and are returning to the community.

Intermediate Sanction Levels are adopted from the Massachusetts SentencingCommission's Report to the General Court, April 10, 1996:

The commission . . . adopted the notion of a continuum of fourlevels of intermediate sanctions, based on the constraints onpersonal liberty associated with the sanction . . .

Figure 2 shows the sentencing guidelines grid proposed by the MassachusettsSentencing Commission and the manner in which intermediate sanctions areintegrated into the sentencing guidelines. The intermediate sanction levelsrepresent the practical method by which a combination of sanctions and servicesare assigned to offenders. Community corrections centers are designed toprovide for the intensive supervision of offenders, delivering a bundled programof sanctions and services to offenders at Intermediate Sanction Level III andLevel IV.

Intermediate Sanction Level IV is the most intense level of community based,criminal justice supervision. Sanctions and services required at this level ofsupervision represent a twenty-four hour restriction upon the liberty of theoffender. Level IV participants are required to report to the communitycorrections center for four to six hours per day, five days per week. Additionally,offenders placed at Intermediate Sanction Level IV are monitored twenty-fourhours per day via electronic device, required to submit to the highest category ofrandom drug and alcohol testing, and typically mandated to attend two four-hourcommunity work service shifts per week.

Intermediate Sanction Level III is an intense level of community-based,criminal justice supervision. Sanctions and services required at this level ofsupervision represent a daily imposition upon the liberty of the offender. Level III

Utilization of Community Corrections Centers, Statistical Report FY 2013

3

participants are required to report to the community corrections center for one tofour hours per day, three to five days per week. Offenders placed at IntermediateSanction Level III may be monitored via electronic device. Level III also requiresrandom drug and alcohol testing, and attendance at, at least one four-hourcommunity service shift per week.

Community Service. The Community Service Program manages theimplementation of community work service as an intermediate sanction forcriminal justice agencies throughout the state. Offenders are referred to theCommunity Service Program as a condition of probation, parole, or pre-releaseand as a component of an intermediate sanction level at a communitycorrections center. The Community Service Program specifically addresses thepurposes of sentencing by: ensuring public safety by providing closely monitoredcommunity work service; promoting respect for the law and the communitythrough community restitution; and, providing opportunities for work skillstraining.

Drug & Alcohol Testing. Drug testing is among the graduated sanctionsavailable at the community corrections centers. Offenders are subject to drugtesting at both intermediate sanction levels III and IV. The drug testing system ismodeled after the American Probation and Parole Association's Drug TestingGuidelines and Practices for Adult Probation and Parole Agencies. Uponassignment to an Intermediate Sanction Level, participants are assigned a drugtesting color. The assigned color corresponds to the participant's risk level.Participants are required to call a toll free number daily in order to determinewhat color will be tested that day. When a participant's color is selected on aparticular day, the participant is required to report for drug testing. Specimencollection is observed by staff.

Since the inception of the OCC in 1996, 27 community corrections centers havebeen developed across the Commonwealth. Due to budgetary constraintscenters have had to close. There are currently 18 centers in operation. DuringFY 2013; 20 centers were in operation (Holyoke and Webster for only part ofFY13), all of which are the subject of this study.

Figure 1 shows the number of community corrections centers in operation permonth from 1998 to FY 2013. A list of the community corrections centers andtheir dates of operation can be found at the end of the report.


4

This report provides summary statistical data on the utilization of communitycorrections centers in FY 2013. It is intended to inform judges, probation andparole officers, correctional staff, policy makers, and most importantly, the publicabout the development of significant criminal justice policy and practices inMassachusetts.

Figure 1. Number of Community Corrections Centers, 1998 to 2013


5

Figure 2. Sentencing Guidelines Grid

Level Illustrative Offense Sentence Range

9 Murder Life Life Life Life Life

8 Rape of Child with Force 96 - 144 Mos. 108 - 162 Mos. 120 - 180 Mos. 144 - 216 Mos. 204 - 306 Mos.Aggravated RapeArmed Burglary

7 Armed Robbery (Gun) 60 - 90 Mos. 68 - 102 Mos. 84 - 126 Mos. 108 - 162 Mos. 160 - 240 Mos.RapeMayhem

6 Manslaughter (Invol) 40 - 60 Mos. 45 - 67 Mos. 50 - 75 Mos. 60 - 90 Mos. 80 - 120 Mos.Armed Robbery (No gun)A&B DW (Sign. injury)

5 Unarmed Robbery 12 - 36 Mos. 24 - 36 Mos. 36 - 54 Mos. 48 - 72 Mos. 60 - 90 Mos.Stalking (Viol. of Order) IS-IV IS-IVUnarmed Burglary IS-III IS-IIILarceny ($50,000+) IS-II IS-II

4 Larceny From a Person 0 - 24 Mos. 3 - 30 Mos. 6 - 30 Mos. 20 - 30 Mos. 24 - 36 Mos.A&B DW (Mod. injury) IS-IV IS-IV IS-IVB&E (Dwelling) IS-III IS-III IS-IIILarceny ($10,000-$50,000) IS-II IS-II IS-II

3 A&B DW (No/minor injury) 0 - 12 Mos. 0 - 15 Mos. 0 - 18 Mos. 0 - 24 Mos. 6 - 24 Mos.B&E (Not dwelling) IS-IV IS-IV IS-IV IS-IV IS-IVLarceny ($250 to $10,000) IS-III IS-III IS-III IS-III IS-III

IS-II IS-II IS-II IS-II IS-IIIS-I IS-I IS-I

2 Assault 0 - 6 Mos. 0 - 6 Mos. 0 - 9 Mos. 0 - 12 Mos.Larceny Under $250 IS-IV IS-IV

IS-III IS-III IS-III IS-III IS-IIIIS-II IS-II IS-II IS-II IS-IIIS-I IS-I IS-I IS-I IS-I

1 Operate After Suspension 0 - 3 Mos. 0 - 6 Mos.Disorderly Conduct IS-IV IS-IVVandalism IS-III IS-III IS-III IS-III

IS-II IS-II IS-II IS-II IS-IIIS-I IS-I IS-I IS-I IS-IA B C D E

Criminal History Scale No/Minor Moderate Serious Violent or SeriousRecord Record Record Repetitive Violent

Sentencing Zone Intermediate Sanction Level

Incarceration Zone IS-IV 24-Hour RestrictionIS-III Daily Accountability

Discretionary Zone (Incarceration/Intermediate Sanctions) IS-II Standard SupervisionIS-I Financial Accountability

Intermediate Sanction Zone

The numbers in each cell represent the range from which the judge selects the maximum sentence (Not MoreThan);The minimum sentence (Not Less Than) is 2/3rds of the maximum sentence and constitutes the initial paroleeligibility date.


6

METHOD

Study Sample. All community corrections centers operating during at least part ofand/or the entirety of FY 2013 were included in the sample. A list of thecommunity corrections centers included in this report and their dates of operationis located at the end of the report. In the tables, each of the communitycorrections centers is referred to by the city or town in which it is located. Some ofthe centers specialize services for select groups of offenders. The followingabbreviations have been adopted:

• CCC community corrections center (adult males and females)• JRC juvenile resource center (juvenile males)

Study Period. The study period covers FY 2013, or July 1, 2012 through June 30,2013.

Data Collection. Data was collected from monthly utilization reports andcommunity service log reports submitted by each community corrections centerand the Community Service Program to the OCC. *

* Due to a reporting issue with the Lynn CCC’s monthly reports, data was used from weekly

utilization reports. The same variables are indicated on a weekly basis and no issues arose in

writing the report due to this reporting issue.

Monthly utilization reports formed one basis of the data collection for this report. Several variables of data were collected. These included variables related to thepopulation flow through the center, and those related to the status of participantswithin the center. For each category of data that was collected the data wasseparated by intermediate sanction level ( III or IV), the gender of the offender,and the supervising agency (probation, parole, sheriff, DYS, or DOC). Data wasgenerally reported in the form of numbers of offenders participating in theprogram at the end of each month in a particular category, or the number servedduring each month. The categories of data are as follows:

New Participants. The monthly utilization reports provided the number ofnew participants by intermediate sanction level, gender and supervisingagency for the reporting period.

Transitions. The monthly utilization reports provided data regardingoffender progression from one level of supervision to another. This


7

category was called transition. This includes the movement of a participantfrom Intermediate Sanction Level IV to Intermediate Sanction Level III,indicated as a Level IV transition or from Intermediate Sanction Level III toIntermediate Sanction Level II (standard supervision), indicated as Level IIItransition.

Terminations. The monthly utilization report also provided data regardingoffender discharge from the community corrections center which waslabeled termination. Such data was separated by level, gender andsupervising agency and was further classified regarding the reason foroffender termination. The reasons for termination from intermediatesanction level III and IV were codified on the form and included thefollowing: warrant issued, violation of probation pending, incarcerated,returned to higher custody, sentence expired or paroled, placed inresidential or inpatient treatment, transferred to another communitycorrections center, unable to continue due to medical issues.Community corrections centers also reported data corresponding tocategories of program services or sanctions. These categories includeGED, job placement, aftercare status, and drug testing.

GED. The monthly utilization reports provided the number of participantsthat took the GED examination, the number of participants that passed aportion of the examination, and the number of participants that passed theexamination and received their GED.

Job Placement. The monthly utilization reports provided the number ofparticipants that were placed in a part time job and the number ofparticipants that were placed in a full time job.

Aftercare. The monthly utilization report provided the number of participantsthat made a successful transition to Intermediate Sanction Level II(standard supervision) and were placed in an aftercare program of lowrestriction or voluntary nature.

Drug Testing. The monthly utilization report provided the number ofparticipants for which a negative drug test result was reported, the numberof participants for which one or more positive results were reported on aparticular specimen, and the number of participants that tested positive fora particular substance such as, cocaine, opiate, THC, etc.


8

Community Service Logs provided the second source of data collection andprovided aggregate monthly information on the number of referrals to the programfor each court site. Because community service is provided at court sites as wellas community corrections center sites, these logs were maintained on a countylevel rather than a community corrections center level.

Data Analysis. The 12 monthly utilization reports for each center along with thecommunity service logs formed the basis of the analysis. Some of the analysisdisplays aggregated data across all community corrections centers for each week. Other data analysis shows the average reported utilization by center across theentire study period.

Data Quality. Monthly utilization reports were received from all of the communitycorrections centers for the entire study period.


9

FINDINGS

TOTAL POPULATION

Figure 3 shows the total population in the 20 community corrections centers foreach reporting month in the study. In August 2012, community corrections centersreported a high total of Intermediate Sanction Level III and IV participants. InDecember 2012, community corrections centers reported a low total of 663intermediate sanction level participants.

Figure 4 shows the average population in each of the community correctionscenters for the study period. The community corrections centers ranged from anaverage of 8.3 participants at the Holyoke CCC to an average of 80.8 participantsat the Boston CCC. The state wide cumulative average attendance across allcenters was 758 participants.

Figure 3. Total Population by Month


10

Figure 4. Average Population by Center


11

POPULATION BY SUPERVISING AGENCY

Figure 5 shows the supervising agency of participants in community correctionscenters. During the study period, participants in the community correctionscenters were under the supervision of one of three different agencies. Onaverage, 81.4% of the participants were under the supervision of probation; 13.1%were under the supervision of a sheriff’s department; 5.5% were under thesupervision of the Parole Board.

Figure 5. Population by Supervising Agency


12

Figure 6 shows the supervising agency of the participants at each of thecommunity corrections centers during FY 2013. There were large differences inthe population at each of the centers. Boston CCC had the highest averageproportion of probation supervised participants (98.8%). Pittsfield CCC had thehighest average proportion of parole supervised participants (35.8%);Northampton CCC had the highest average proportion of sheriff’s supervisedparticipants (54.5%).

* Regarding the Worcester JRC, the 0.17 average “Sheriff participants” representsand average of DYS not sheriff participants. Due to the need for uniform reporting,submission of DYS participants for juvenile centers falls under the code of sheriffparticipant.


13

Figure 6. Average Population by Supervising Agency and Center


14

POPULATION BY LEVELFigure 7 shows the distribution of the population in community corrections centersby intermediate sanction level in FY 2013. On average, 91.9% of the participantswere supervised at Intermediate Sanction Level III and 8.1% were supervised atIntermediate Sanction Level IV.

Figure 8 shows the distribution of the population by intermediate sanction level foreach of the 20 community corrections centers. The Boston CCC had the highestproportion of participants at Intermediate Sanction Level IV, and average of 11participants (13.8%). The Holyoke CCC had100% intermediate sanction level IIIparticipants. The Holyoke CCC has the highest segment of intermediate sanctionlevel III, due to the fact that the center only accepts participants of level III status.The Fitchburg CCC follows as having the next highest segment of intermediatelevel III participants with an average of 47 (98.6%).

Figure 7. Average Population by Intermediate Sanction Level


15

Figure 8. Average Population by Intermediate Sanctions Level and Center


16

POPULATION BY GENDER

The community corrections centers provided services to both male and femaleparticipants. As shown in Figure 9 on average, 21% of the participants in thecommunity corrections centers were female and 79% were male. Figure 10 showsthe distribution of population by gender for each of the 20 community correctionscenters. The Worcester JRC provideds services to juvenile male participants only. Among the centers providing services to both male and female participants,Northampton CCC had the highest average proportion of males (93.3%) andSalisbury CCC had the highest average proportion of females (59.9%).

Figure 9. Average Population by Gender


17

Figure 10. Average Population by Gender and Center


18

NEW PARTICIPANTS

Participants can be referred to the community corrections centers at any point during theyear. Participants were referred to community corrections centers by the court (in thecase of probation supervised participants), by the Parole Board, by a Sheriff’sDepartment, by the Department of Correction or by the Department of Youth Services.Participants were referred at two intermediate sanction levels. Intermediate SanctionLevel III represents daily accountability consisting of structured program services suchas substance abuse treatment and sanctions such as drug testing and communityservice at the center. Intermediate Sanction Level IV represents 24-hour restriction andincludes electronic monitoring along with structured program services and sanctions.

Figure 11 shows the proportion of participants referred to community corrections centersat intermediate sanction level III, and IV. In FY 2013. The majority of participants werereferred to IS Level III.

Figure 11. Referrals by Level


19

Figure 12. Referrals by Level and Agency

Figure 12 shows new referrals by level and supervising agent. During FY 2013 there were 2,700 referrals to IS Levels IIIand 285 referrals made to IS Level IV


20

TRANSITIONS AND TERMINATIONS

The terms transition and termination are used to describe the flow of participantsthrough the community corrections center. Data reported here indicates participantswhose status changed during FY 2013. Generally speaking a transition describes aparticipant that is progressing through intermediate sanction levels within the communitycorrections center, while a termination describes a participant that has been dischargedfrom the community corrections center.

There were 801 intermediate sanction level III and IV transitions and 2,024 intermediatesanction level III and IV terminations from community corrections centers during FY2013. Transitions included all participants that moved from a higher to a lowerintermediate sanction level during the reporting period. Terminations includedparticipants that were discharged from community corrections centers for the followingreasons: warrant issued, violation of probation pending, incarcerated, returned to highercustody, sentence expired/paroled, placed in residential or inpatient treatment,transferred to another community corrections center, unable to continue for medicalreasons, removal from programming by supervising agency.

As shown in Figure 13:

• 3.0% of participants moved from Level IV to Level III; • 26.0% of participants moved from Level III to Level II or standard supervision; • 7.0%of participants were terminated from Level IV ; • 64.0% of participants were terminated from Level III.

Figure 14 shows the number of transitions by month and level. Figure 15 shows thenumber of transitions by center and level. Figure 16 shows the number of terminationsby month and level. Figure 17 shows the number of terminations by center and level.

The reasons for intermediate sanction level III and IV terminations are featured in Figure18. Among Level IV terminations the most prominent reason reported was SentenceExpired at 46.7%. For Level III terminations the most frequent reason reported waswarrant issued at 27.7%.


21

Figure 13. Transitions and Terminations from Centers


22

Figure 14. Transitions by Month and Level


23

Figure 15. Transitions by Center and Level


24

Figure 16. Terminations by Month and Level


25

Figure 17. Terminations by Center and Level


26

Figure 18. Termination Reasons for Level III, IV


27

Total Outcomes: Transition and Termination

A termination or discharge can be with criminal justice intervention or without criminaljustice intervention. A termination without criminal justice intervention is not necessarilydue to non compliance. Such terminations include: sentence expired/paroled, placed inresidential treatment, unable to continue due to medical/mental illness, transferred toanother OCC/jurisdiction, or removal by supervising agency. Terminations with criminaljustice intervention would include: warrant issued, violation of probation pending, orreturned to higher custody.

Combining the transitions (a participant that is progressing through intermediate sanctionlevels within the community corrections center) and the terminations without criminaljustice intervention, portrays a more accurate picture of participant outcomes unrelatedto noncompliance. In FY 2013 57.1% of the outcomes were without criminal justiceintervention, while only 42.9% of the participants were terminated due to criminal justiceintervention.

Figure 19. Outcome without criminal justice intervention and with criminal justiceintervention


28

GED

Education is among the service components offered at community corrections centers. Data was collected regarding General Education Development (GED) preparation in FY2013. Across the state 91 intermediate sanction level participants were awarded theirGED in FY 2013. As indicated in Figure 20, Salisbury CCC had the greatest number ofparticipants receive a GED.

*All juvenile participants are required to be full time students, therefore do not require GED services.


29

Figure 20. GED Performance by Center


30

JOB PLACEMENT

Job placement is another among the service components of community correctionscenters. Figure 21 indicates the number of participants that were placed in full or parttime jobs by job developers at the centers and the percentage of full time and part timejob placements. There were a total of 876 job placements made across the state in FY2013, of which 666 were full time and 210 were part time. The Plymouth CCC had thegreatest success in facilitating full time employment, placing 82 participants. TheBarnstable CCC had the greatest success accessing part time employment, placing 50participants.


31

Figure 21. Job Placement Performance by Center


32

AFTERCARE

A final service component that was tracked on monthly reports was aftercareplacements. Aftercare placements consist of referrals made to community basedagencies in order to obtain the support services necessary to help a participant maintainsuccess at a lower level of supervision.

Figure 22 shows the number of aftercare placements at each center in FY 2013. Therewere a total of 691 aftercare placements made across the state in FY 2013. The LowellCCC had the greatest number of aftercare placements with 70.


33

Figure 22. Aftercare Placement by Center


34

DRUG TESTING

Drug testing is among the most prominent sanctions administered by communitycorrections centers. Participants are tested randomly by virtue of a color code system inwhich the color assigned to a participant corresponds to risk level. There was variation indrug testing administration at different centers. Centers screened for different types ornumbers of drugs and screened for different types or numbers of adulterants. However,all centers were contracted to screen in accordance with the standards for drug testingset forth in the American Probation and Parole Association’s Drug Testing Guidelinesand Practices for Adult Probation and Parole Agencies.

Figure 23 shows the total number of urine specimens screened for illicit drugs by eachcenter in FY 2013. The table indicates the total number of positive and negative results. The Boston CCC performed the greatest number of drug tests with 8,069.

Figure 24 shows the percentage of positive and negative drug test results at centers inFY 2013. The average across all centers was 86.2% negative; 13.8% positive. TheWebster CCC had the greatest percentage of negative results at 92.5%. The LowellCCC had the greatest percentage of positive results at 26.9%.


35

Figure 23. Total Number of Drug Screens by Center


36

Figure 24. Percentage of Positive and Negative Drug Test Results by Center


37

COMMUNITY SERVICE

There were 18,310 referrals to the community service program in FY 2013. Allparticipants at community corrections centers were referred to community service. Inaddition, referrals were made by the following court departments: Superior, District,Juvenile, and Probate.

Of the 18,310 adult and juvenile referrals:

• 4,431 (24.8%) were adult females; • 13,432 (75.1%) were adult males;

• 17,863 (97.6%) were adults;• 447 (2.4%) were juveniles.

Figure 25 depicts the total number of adult referrals for community service by county andgender.

Figure 26 depicts the total number of juvenile referrals for community service by countyand gender.


38

Figure 25. Adult Community Service Referrals by County and Gender


39

Figure 26. Juvenile Community Service Referrals by County and Gender


40

SUMMARY

A main purpose of this report has been to provide data on the utilization of communitycorrections centers. Among the highlights are:

• the community corrections centers provided services to a large number ofparticipants;

• the community corrections centers provided services in diverse locationsacross the Commonwealth;

• the community corrections centers delivered intermediate sanctions toparticipants from different components of the criminal justice systemwitnessing strong collaboration; however,

• the ratio of participants from different agencies remained disparate fromcenter to center;

• of the 2,821 outcomes (transitions and terminations), 57.1% were for non-criminal justice intervention reasons.

The project developed a reliable measure of the utilization of communitycorrections centers.

Based on the utility of the community corrections centers, a consistent applicationof intermediate sanctions across the commonwealth in 19 diverse communitiesand various offender populations has been observed.

The project demonstrated the utility and feasibility of conducting research acrossall of the community corrections centers.

This research project was the result of a collaborative effort among 20 differentcommunity corrections centers which were able to provide a consistent set of dataon program utilization enabling cross center comparisons.


41

The electronic submission of data from the community corrections centers to theOCC was vital to the efficiency and integrity of the report.

Due to the volume of cases serviced by the community corrections centers, electronicsubmission of data has allowed efficient use of OCC staff resources and greater dataintegrity. Since FY 2008 all data collection, aggregate and case level utilization reports,from each community corrections center have been electronically submitted. This hasallowed for greater depth of analysis and more sophisticated data integritymeasurements.

Case level data on CCC participants.

This analysis is based on aggregate statistics provided by the community correctionscenters. Since FY 2008 the OCC has developed methods for case level analysis. Fullcompliance with electronic submission has made this progress possible. In past andpresent years OCC staff have begun addressing the following questions through caselevel analysis.

• What is the average length of time for participation in a center?

• Do participants whom obtain a GED have a high positive transition rate?

• What is the new arraignment rate for clients referred to a communitycorrections center, state-wide average and per each center?


42

Community Corrections Centers Included in Study Sample

Utilization of Community Correction Centers - FY 2013 James, Administrative Assistant Court Services...

Documents

Transcript of Utilization of Community Correction Centers - FY 2013 James, Administrative Assistant Court Services...